Before
the court are four related motions filed by plaintiff Jack
Kimm (“Kimm”). First, at docket 92 Kimm moves for
an extension of the February 6, 2017 fact discovery deadline
to April 21, 2017, and the dispositive motions and motions
in limine deadline from March 24, 2017 to June 23,
2017. Defendants Martin Brannan (“Brannan”),
Samuel Verderman (“Verderman”), Frank Haws
(“Haws”), Thomas Jones (“Jones”), and
La Paz County (collectively, “the La Paz
Defendants”) oppose the motion at docket 100.

The
next two motions are motions to strike. At docket 97 Kimm
moves to strike defendant Rayburn Evans'
(“Evans”) objections at docket 88 to the
deposition notice of Steven Suskin (“Suskin”).
Evans opposes the motion at docket 104. At docket 98 Kimm
moves to strike Evans' objections at docket 89 to the
deposition notice of John Churchill
(“Churchill”). Evans opposes the motion at docket
105. Kimm's combined reply in support of both of these
motions is at docket 107.

Finally,
at docket 103 Kimm moves to compel Suskin's and
Churchill's depositions, supported at docket 109 by a
declaration of counsel. Evans opposes the motion at docket
106. Kimm replies at docket 108, supported by a declaration
of counsel at docket 110. At docket 111 Kimm filed a notice
of errata with a corrected Exhibit 3 to his reply.

Oral
argument was not requested and would not assist the court.

II.
BACKGROUND

The
background to this case set out in the court's order at
docket 47 need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say for
present purposes that the court's scheduling and planning
order established a fact discovery deadline of October 7,
2016, and a dispositive motion and motion in limine
deadline of March 24, 2017.[1] In October Kimm's counsel,
Joy Bertrand (“Bertrand”), attempted to schedule
the defendants' depositions for November or
December.[2] Counsel for the La Paz Defendants
responded by stating that Haws would be made available for a
deposition in Phoenix and requesting that the remaining
defendants' depositions take place in La Paz
County.[3]

At
docket 72 Kimm moved to extend the fact discovery deadline
until February 6, 2017. Kimm stated that he had taken
Evans' deposition but, due to scheduling issues, not the
La Paz Defendants'.[4] Kimm estimated that the remaining
depositions would be complete by the end of January. On
December 12, 2016, the court granted the motion over
Evans' objection.[5]

On
December 19 Bertrand emailed opposing counsel requesting
dates for Suskin's and Churchill's
depositions.[6] Suskin and Churchill represented Evans in
the case that Kimm filed against Evans in state court,
[7] and
they currently represent Evans in this action. Churchill
responded to Bertrand's email by stating that he
preferred to have his deposition taken in Parker and
instructed Bertrand to contact his staff to identify a
suitable deposition date.[8] Suskin responded to Bertrand also,
stating that he was available to be deposed on several dates
in January.[9]

About
one month before the discovery deadline, Bertrand emailed
Michael Warzynski (“Warzynski”), the La Paz
Defendants' counsel, requesting his availability for
Suskin's and Churchill's depositions.[10]
Warzynski's paralegal responded by stating that Warzynski
was in trial from January 17 to February 13 and providing
nine dates after the trial ended that Warzynski was available
for depositions.[11] Bertrand then reached out to Suskin and
Churchill on January 10 to see if they were available on the
dates listed by Warzynski's paralegal.[12] Suskin and
Churchill did not respond. On January 17 Bertrand emailed
Warzynski to see if his trial went forward as scheduled and,
if not, if they could schedule depositions.[13] Warzynski did
not respond.

In late
January Kimm filed deposition notices for Suskin (February
8), [14] Haws (February 21), [15] and Churchill
(March 3).[16] Bertrand emailed opposing counsel
regarding Suskin's, Churchill's, [17] and Haws'
depositions[18] on February 1. In her email Bertrand
informed opposing counsel that she intended to notice the
depositions of the remaining defendants (Brannan, Verderman,
Jones, and La Paz County) for mid-March.[19] To date, Kimm
has not noticed any of these depositions.

On
February 2 Evans filed objections to Suskin's and
Churchill's deposition notices, asserting that the
depositions (1) were untimely because they were scheduled for
after the discovery deadline; (2) seek documents and
information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
privilege and work-product doctrines; (3) were not adequately
noticed; and (4) would be burdensome, oppressive, and
harassing to Evans, Suskin, and Churchill.[20] Warzynski
responded to Bertrand's email by stating that he would
have been inclined to arrange for Haws' deposition if
Kimm had only requested that one deposition, but because Kimm
now seemed “intent to attempt a discovery extravaganza
after the close of discovery, ” Warzynski would object
to the deposition notices for all La Paz
Defendants.[21]

III.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW

Rule
6(b)(1)(A) provides that the district court may “for
good cause” grant a request for an extension of time.
“[Rule 6(b)(1)], like all the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, ‘[is] to be liberally construed to
effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried
on the merits.'”[22] The decision to grant or deny
a Rule 6(b)(1) motion is committed to the district
court's discretion.[23]

Local
Rule of Civil Procedure (“Local Rule”) 7.2(m)
governs motions to strike. It provides in pertinent part that
a motion to strike may be filed “if it seeks to strike
any part of a filing or submission on the ground that it is
prohibited (or not authorized) by a statute, rule, or court
order.”[24] The decision to grant or deny a motion
to strike is within the court's discretion.[25]

If a
party fails to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery,
the requesting party may move to compel.[26] “The
party who resists discovery has the burden to show that
discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of
clarifying, explaining, and supporting its
objections.”[27]

IV.
DISCUSSION

A.
The Motion to Compel

Evans
testified at his deposition that Suskin referred Kimm to the
La Paz County Attorney's Office for
prosecution.[28] The circumstances surrounding this
referral are central to Kimm's complaint.[29] Kimm seeks an
order compelling Suskin's and Churchill's
depositions.

Kimm's
motion is a discovery motion to which Local Rule
7.2(j)[30] and Rule 37(a)(1)[31] apply. The
motion runs afoul of these rules because Bertrand did not
attach to the motion a statement certifying that she
personally consulted Evans' counsel and made sincere
efforts to resolve their objections. Based on this
deficiency, the court may not consider the
motion.[32] Kimm's motion will be denied without
prejudice.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The
court notes that Evans raises nine arguments in opposition to
Kimm&#39;s motion. The court expects that most, if not all,
of these objections will be resolved without court
intervention after counsel confers with one another. For
example, the parties should be able to stipulate to extending
the deadline for discovery motions considering that the
conduct underlying Kimm&#39;s current motion occurred after
the deadline, [33] and Evans cannot refuse to comply with a
discovery request based on his opinion that Kimm&#39;s case
should be dismissed.[34] Finally, the court notes that although
deposing opposing counsel is generally disfavored, this
disfavor &ldquo;is not a talisman for the resolution of all
controversies of this nature.&rdquo;[35] Once the parties confer
regarding persuasive cases on this ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.